Photo Ninja adds preliminary support for X-Trans Raw images

Another contender has entered the relatively small ring of Raw converters that can work with Fujifilm's X-Trans sensors: Photo Ninja. Version 1.2.0 of this already-capable image editor now has 'preliminary' support for X-Trans Raws.

Prior to the release of Photo Ninja 1.2, there were very few Raw converters out there for X-Trans. This $129 software, available for Mac and Windows, gives photographers one more option. The software can be downloaded for free and a two-week license code is available on-request from PictureCode.

Photo Ninja 1.2 vs ACR 8.2: Real-world Sample

Photo Ninja 1.2 vs ACR 8.2: Studio scene

Photo Ninja 1.2: Default settings

Adobe Camera Raw 8.2: Default settings

100% crop

100% crop

100% crop

100% crop

The Photo Ninja output shows slight hints of the 'paintbrush' style artefacts we've become used to seeing from X-Trans conversions but it also does a pretty good job of conveying fine detail. In our old studio scene you can see the cost of this - pronounced moiré in the fine repeating patterns of the printed samples. However, this is something of a 'torture test' - it's unlikely you'll often encounter these high-frequency repeating patterns in the real world. So, while it's not a stand-out winner in this preliminary guise, it looks like a credible extra option for X-Trans shooters.

Really??I have PN,it's quite good but I prefer C1P7 for most of my files,DXP is also very good and I prefer the UI,there ids no RC that is absolute best for every sensor,DXO will be best for some files,C1P for others,I prefer the colour from C1P to PN...

I did extensive testing with Photo Ninja and it became part of my standard toolkit, but it's not top dog, just very good at default conversions which are heavily enhanced. This may suit some but not others.

For example, highlight recovery enhances the colour by guessing. When it guesses right, it does a great job as can be seen in the photos above on the blue skies. But sometimes it guesses wrong and gives false colours so has to be turned off and then it's not so good.

When I put it up against Aperture, it produced nicer initial conversions, but that's because Aperture defaults to a very neutral image and leaves it to you to add the sauce. Once I tune the images to my preferences, I still find Aperture the better tool.

But I see no reason to limit myself to a single tool, after all I use multiple cameras and lenses. So I use Aperture as my main processor but revert to Photo Ninja, DXO or Lightroom for those images which benefit from the strong features of those other tools.

I have extensive experience with Capture One, and while I prefer it to ACR/LR, it is no match for Photo Ninja. I say this having run numerous head to head comparisons. I also take issue with those who dismiss PN as superior only at default settings. There are no adjustments in any other raw convertor that I have tested that can match what I can get from PN, and I do not rely exclusively on its defaults. PN's defaults are superb, but they should serve as a starting point for the editing process. If you routinely accept the defaults as final, then you are missing much of the power of the program.

I noticed this too. Sometimes it guesses wrong when it does highlight/shadow color recovery and you end up with some weird color casts. I wouldn't use Photo Ninja as my primary RAW converter, the product isn't as polished as the other big players, and the workflow isn't fast or streamlined. Plus as you mentioned you have to watch out for false colors if you batch converted a large number of photos. It does deliver noticeably better results in certain conditions though, so it is best used on only photos you really want to get the most out of.

you can in general easily remove the false colour casts by reducing the level on the colour recovery slider. IMO, it's better to have a guess at recovery colours with the ability to override than just changing everything to grey as other developers tend to do. It can get things spectacularly right as well as wrong!

PhotoNinja is like no other. Once you have given it a serious try it becomes your main RAW converter. It easily does things, such as highlight recovery, detail rendering, difficult color noise reduction etc., my other converters (LR, ACR, Capture One Pro, DPP) can't do. I posted some examples in Canon forum and some thought I didn't know how to use LR, ACR etc. So, I posted RAW files for them to try. Of course they failed to match PN. Honestly, you will rediscover your old lenses.I still use CS6 for some photos after converting them in PN, because ACR lets you adjust locally for fine tuning, but PN doesn't offer (yet) local adjustment.

I will encourage everyone to download the free trial version and give it a serious try.

Yes, i wanted to try it but ..- doesn't support X20 Xtrans ..- doesn't support RD1 .ERFso ...try a NEF, The result is very good, but the work flow is very very slow,and I use the D700 on big jobs and have good results with other faster converters...

X20 RAW and ERF would be more interesting, than not very well supported with other converters, but not supported at all with PN !

so :(

Result are very good, with more cameras supported, and a better workflow (I don't speak of catalogs .. I'd give a new try

I fully agree with the OP. I have tried them all - Photo Ninja is the best quality-wise. The set of features is minimal, but it is all I need. The program is NOT slow - editing is very fast. What is slow is exporting, but since this is a batch job, I don't care.

PhotoNinja makes one register to activate trialware, and since I already tried an earlier version I wonder if their system will balk--I guess I could use a different clone and obviously a different email for activating the trialware.

I hope PhotoNinja also takes a stab at Foveon sensor. You get great highlight recovery and noise handling for starters; also, PN handles the black point much better than other RAW converters I've tried.

Still, very, very minor difference that probably no one would ever be able to notice when viewing photos not zoomed in at 100%. Sure, it's great to have the best conversion possible, but I still believe the job Adobe does is much more than adequate and I would never sacrifice my quick AND easy workflow with Lightroom. Import and convert to DNG at the same time and I'm all done. No TIFFs to deal with, etc, etc. I would be shocked if anyone could truly see a difference even in large prints unless you were making extremely large prints, which I imagine very few people ever do.

To me, at these standard settings, the only material difference I can see, besides the moiré issue, is that PN seems to have more saturated colours and slightly higher contrast than ACR. I think these issues, if you regard them as such, could be fixed in ACR without much difficulty.

My first impressions, based only on these samples, is that there's more detail in the foliage of the first 100% crop - something that you can't replicate with ACR (or, at least, not something I've managed to match, even with fine radius sharpening.

I use Photo Ninja to process most of my RAW photos. For me there is no going back elsewhere unless there is a really compelling reason to do so. The main benefit of Photo Ninja is it's outstanding ability to recover highlights, where other converters just cannot pull them, making the software suitable to process some of the most challenging RAW files quickly and effectively. I don't think the examples in the article below make this clear enough. On the flip side, you'll need a recent and powerful computer to run Photo Ninja fast - however my 4 year old Mac Book Pro with 8GB of ram and pure SSD based workflow does just fine for me.

The test should include the jpeg, because some folks say that the Fujifilm jpegs are so good it really isn't necessary to shoot raw. Perhaps compared to what was available up to now. THIS one looks excellent!

Good point tho, even if you didn't see the link. I shoot Raw + JPEG and usually end up deleting the Raw unless some extreme shadow or highlight recovery is necessary.

I don't know, though, I prefer the Adobe rendering in about 50% of the examples above. Certainly not enough difference to switch from the excellent Lightroom workflow - and it pains me to say that after Adobe's recent CC games.

I have not used PN. However, when I used LR I went with the jpeg's more than half the time. Since going back to Aperture, I don't even bother looking at the jpeg's and should probably start shooting raw only.

I think much of the fanfare over Fuji's jpeg's was the result of LR's raw renders. They simply took too much work to get the same results as the jpeg. With Aperture, I get a render as good or better than the jpeg and perhaps a small adjustment here or there and I'm done.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.